World Rankings- Updated Topic

dmurphy104
Posts: 2299 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 137 12 101
Prospect
And Hamilton only lost 2 owners in the last offseason. So turnover wouldnt capture the 'fuked' up feel in that case.
4/13/2012 2:55 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
As I said, Hamilton has a difference of opinion on what constitutes a "good" owner.    As you are aware(since you know how vocal a certain someone was when you took a team recently), that is a problem in a lot of worlds.
4/13/2012 2:59 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2012 1:54:00 PM (view original):
I'm only in 5 worlds.  Looking at it from one owner's perspective, 1-6-17-30-49, that seems really close to how I feel about the competitiveness of each world.    As a disclaimer, I'm just starting my 2nd season in BTP(49) so that's a very lmited view.   And, quite honestly, my viewpoint comes less from looking at the good teams and more from looking at the bad ones.   Every world has good/bad teams.   Good worlds limit how good the good teams get.   There are no unbeatable powerhouses in any of my worlds.   But the bad teams determine the quality of the world to me.   When the top teams rest 3-4 starters against a team, they're saying "They are not competitive."

One way I'd look at it is Runs Allowed vs. League Average.   I'd take the bottom 25% in wins(8 teams) and compare.   Here's how my worlds come out(last full season except MG which is at game 162):
Coop 699-706    7
MG 715-756   41
Mantle 739-823   84
Hamilton 729-797  68
BTP 766-885   119

Hamilton actually comes out better than Mantle which surprises just a little.   8 teams is pretty substantial and covers the "park factors" along with the random total turd team(which really hurts the world). 
BTW,
Duff Beer 849-983 for a difference of 134
4/13/2012 3:12 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Didn't work so well for Warning Track.
727-811   84
4/13/2012 3:15 PM
dmurphy104
Posts: 2299 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 137 12 101
Prospect
and looking at those #s, I rank your worlds in the same order. I would guess that using that criteria would drop BTB way down the list. I think my rankings do a real good job at the very top and bottom of the list. Im not sure if the weights I have properly rank the middle tiers of teams--Not saying it doesnt, Im just not sure yet.  I think looking at sums of the top 4 and bottom 4 teams wins will be an improvement as well.
4/13/2012 3:21 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I think the rigid "100 is horrible, 99 is not" skewers some things.    Obviously a dozen 100 win/loss teams is pretty damn bad.   But a dozen 98 win/loss teams is almost as top/bottom heavy.  That's why I was looking at bottom 25% in win totals.   It's just bottom 8 not "teams with 94 losses".     And I used runs allowed to cover poor fielding instead of earned runs.   Preventing runs is a good way to win games without having to have an overpowering offense.  If you can keep the score low and close, you can win with a two run homer.    Plus trying to win the 13-11 games seems 'tardly anyway.    Very, very basic.
4/13/2012 4:17 PM
dmurphy104
Posts: 2299 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 137 12 101
Prospect
thats why I am going to a sum of wins and a sum of losses on top 4 and bottom 4. That will fix that issue. I also penalized 110+ and 120+ seasons. In a couple of weeks I will have it updated.
4/13/2012 4:20 PM
jpccr
Posts: 516 (0)
Hall of Famer
115 1 50
Rookie
i guess i just don't agree on the +/- thing. I've seen plenty of plus leading teams that were 90 loss clubs. and jut to simplify it, if you had a Hornsby or a Piazza, their negative plays are easily trumped by the elite offense they provide, and that philosophy can be applied with success in HBD.
4/13/2012 6:17 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
From Hamilton:

Franchise Owner GP + - PB CS SBA CS% PK
Rochester Razzlers Dan60043 162 30 78 8 44 165 .267 5
Dover Gnomes vietgnome 162 58 65 6 36 133 .270 2
Minnesota Dusters mpodber 162 54 58 10 29 186 .155 9
Colorado Springs Coors Lights orangeboy19 162 43 52 24 38 177 .215 13
Charleston Rebels cbf88 162 46 48 5 30 144 .208 12
Pittsburgh Miners fergie22 162 74 47 16 25 134 .186 13
Baltimore Bandits tswayne11 162 41 45 32 29 158 .184 3
St. Louis Redbirds spraybottle 162 46 42 5 38 139 .273 9

One playoff team(83-79) and a bunch of 90-100 loss teams.

I guess you could find a world that contradicts that but you'll have to if you want me to buy that it's meaningless.
4/13/2012 6:45 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
And, in case you didn't know, those are the teams with the most negative plays.

Franchise Owner GP + - PB CS SBA CS% PK
Tucson Tumbleweeds silentpadna 162 148 9 19 23 133 .172 5
Santa Fe Dunaways sergei91 162 125 19 13 16 102 .157 1
Kansas City Swing Kings MikeT23 162 112 10 10 39 146 .267 9
Milwaukee Blue Ribbons mrauseo 162 95 15 15 34 129 .264 3
Philadelphia Slayers beachboy71 162 91 12 11 19 119 .159 6
Durham Democrats travisg 162 91 25 11 24 121 .198 8
Anaheim Ambassadors bretrogers 162 85 19 5 32 108 .296 6

The reverse.  Anaheim is the first team with a losing record(76-86).
4/13/2012 6:47 PM
dmurphy104
Posts: 2299 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 137 12 101
Prospect
I think what people are missing is that Im taking the league average. One or two teams that are the exception arent going to drive the average enough to make a difference. A whole league playing left handed 2nd basemen will make a difference.
4/13/2012 7:05 PM
dmurphy104
Posts: 2299 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 137 12 101
Prospect
Ive taken to looking at +/- almost daily with my teams. I thought Id hide a poor fielder in RF in Guiness. In less than a week he has 3 of my team's 4 negative plays. I quickly made a change. When a league has a bunch of teams that allow negative plays to add up, its the sign of a bad world.
4/13/2012 7:07 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I'm not sure it's "people" as much as it's one person attempting to defend his world's low ranking. 

You can go to any world and do the same thing I did in Hamilton.  The teams with the most negative plays will be losers.   The teams with the most positive plays will be winners.   There will be exceptions, a team that scores 7 a game can afford a negative play, but the rule will remain the same.
4/13/2012 7:09 PM
dmurphy104
Posts: 2299 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 137 12 101
Prospect

My Guinness team can pretty much serve as the litmus test of +/-. I have horrible pitching and hitting. And I should end up with the best or 2nd best defense in the league. I still think that team can approach .500. Its generally very cheap and relatively easy to build a defensive team. You shouldnt have to mortgage your future to do a decent job rebuilding.

(Note) Im arguing so many things today..I started morphing this into my tanking/minimum wins argument. 

4/13/2012 7:15 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

My first Hamilton team is a good example.   Worst team the season before.  Bottom 8 in ERA, bottom 10 in OPS(I had no luck acquiring hitting or pitching of note) but improved to 75 wins by claiming/signing anyone who could play D.    That alone changed the way I looked at HBD.

4/13/2012 7:32 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5|6...14 Next ▸
World Rankings- Updated Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.